Q1: Alok thinks that a country needs an efficient government that looks after the welfare of the people. So, if we simply elected our Prime Minister and Ministers and left to them the task of government, we will not need a legislature. Do you agree?
Give reasons for your answer.
Ans: I do not agree with Alok's view. Here are the reasons:
- Leaving all government responsibilities to the Prime Minister and Ministers would undermine the essence of democracy.
- This setup would limit the representation of the people in government.
- Members of the legislature, who represent various viewpoints, would not have the chance to express their opinions.
- Cabinet decisions would lack accountability, as ministers would not need to justify their actions to the legislature.
- This could lead to an all-powerful executive without checks and balances.
- The legislature plays a crucial role in law-making, which requires input from all sections of society.
Therefore, a legislature is essential for a balanced and fair government.
Q2: A class was debating the merits of a bicameral system. The following points were made during the discussion. Read the arguments and say if you agree or disagree with each of them, giving reasons.
- Neha said that bicameral legislature does not serve any purpose.
- Shama argued that experts should be nominated in the second chamber.
- Tridib said that if a country is not a federation, then there is no need to have a second chamber.
Ans:
- This statement is not true because in a large country like India, two houses of legislature are preferred to give due representation to all sections of the society as well as the monopoly of either the chamber can be approached as ‘check and balance’.
- The President nominates 12 members in the Rajya Sabha from among the persons who have distinctions in the field of literature, art, social services, etc., who are experienced and possess intellectual depth.
- Tridib’s argument is also not true because the second chamber is also required to give representations to all sections of society even though it might not be the federation.
Q3: Why can the Lok Sabha control the executive more effectively than the Rajya Sabha can?
Ans: The Lok Sabha controls the executive more effectively than the Rajya Sabha for several reasons:
- The Lok Sabha is a directly elected body, representing the will of the people.
- The Council of Ministers is accountable to the Lok Sabha, not the Rajya Sabha.
- It has the authority to initiate, amend, and reject money bills, while the Rajya Sabha cannot.
- The Lok Sabha can pass a no-confidence motion to remove the government, a power the Rajya Sabha lacks.
- It plays a crucial role in controlling finances, as it can reject money bills.
Q4: Rather than effective control of the executive, the Lok Sabha is a platform for the expression of popular sentiments and people's expectations. Do you agree? Give reasons.
Ans: I do not agree with the statement that the Lok Sabha is merely a platform for expressing popular sentiments and expectations. Here are the reasons:
- Members of the legislature have the freedom to express their views without fear of repercussions, thanks to parliamentary privilege.
- This privilege allows them to work effectively for the people and to control the executive.
- While the Lok Sabha does provide a space for elected representatives to voice their constituents' expectations, its role extends far beyond this.
- The Lok Sabha holds the Union Cabinet accountable for its decisions.
- It possesses the power to make laws, control finances, and amend the Constitution.
- The Council of Ministers remains in office only as long as it has the confidence of the Lok Sabha.
Thus, the Lok Sabha serves as an effective mechanism for controlling the executive.
Q5: The following are some proposals for making the Parliament more effective. State if you agree or disagree with each of them and give your reasons. Explain what would be the effect if these suggestions were accepted.
- Parliament should work for longer period.
- Attendance should be made compulsory for members of Parliament.
- Speakers should be empowered to penalise members for interrupting the proceedings of the House.
Ans:
- Parliament should work for longer period :I agree with the above proposal that parliament should work for a longer period. There are a large number of issues that require debate and legislation and these are delayed sometimes because the parliament is not in session. To overcome this, the parliament needs to work for a longer time.
- Attendance should be made compulsory for members of Parliament : I agree with this proposal as compulsory attendance would lead to presence of members for crucial decisions that require the support of majority. It would also encourage presentation of views across the political spectrum.
- Speakers should be empowered to penalise members for interrupting the proceedings of the House : I agree with this proposal as penalising members for interrupting the proceedings of house would lead to less wastage of time and maintain the dignity of the Parliament. This would also lead to less wastage of the tax payers' money that is incurred to run the parliament. However, it should not lead to suppression of dissent.
Q6: Arif wanted to know that if ministers propose most of the important bills and if the majority party often gets the government bills passed, what is the role of the Parliament in the law making process? What answer would you give him?
Ans: Parliament plays a crucial role in the law-making process, despite most important bills being proposed by ministers.
- The proposed laws must be debated in Parliament, which is essential for thorough examination.
- Various committees made up of members of Parliament study these bills and provide recommendations.
- The opposition also contributes by suggesting changes, ensuring a comprehensive legislative process.
- Disagreements between the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha regarding bills are resolved through a joint sitting of both houses.
Q7: Which of the following statements you agree with the most? Give your reasons.
- Legislators must be free to join any party they want.
- Anti-defection law has contributed to the domination of the party leaders over the legislators.
- Defection is always for selfish purposes and therefore, a legislator who wants to join another party must be disqualified from being a minister for the next two years.
Ans:
- Legislators should not be free to join any party they want as this would encourage corrupt practices particularly at the time of confidence motions. While in theory, they should be free to leave the party they do not want to be with, there should be certain restrictions outlining the conditions under which they are allowed to join another party.
- It is incorrect that anti-defection law has led to domination of party leaders over legislators. The legislators are allowed to defect as long as they have the support of a minimum number of members from their own party.
- Defection may not be always for selfish purposes. However, a legislator who wishes to join another party must seek re-election from his/her constituency before being eligible for ministerial posts. A period of two years of disqualification is therefore, appropriate in this situation.
Q8: Dolly and Sudha are debating about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Parliament in recent times. Dolly believed that the decline of Indian Parliament is evident in the less time spent on debate and discussion and increase in the disturbances of the functioning of the House and walkouts etc. Sudha contends that the fall of different governments on the floor of Lok Sabha is a proof of its vibrancy. What other arguments can you provide to support or oppose the positions of Dolly and Sudha?
Ans: Dolly's position about the decline of Parliament is valid to some extent:
- The time spent on debates has decreased.
- Many sessions have passed without discussions due to disruptions.
- This has hindered the law-making process, with progressive legislation pending.
However, the effectiveness of Parliament as an institution remains strong:
- It is still the supreme law-making body in the country.
- Crucial policy decisions, such as the nuclear agreement with the United States, were debated in Parliament.
- Major decisions related to national interest require parliamentary approval.
Sudha's argument that the fall of different governments in the Lok Sabha indicates its vibrancy is also partially correct:
- The fall of governments shows that no government can take its existence for granted.
- Governments must be accountable for their actions.
- The Lok Sabha controls government finances and scrutinises its actions.
- This prevents excessive concentration of power in the Council of Ministers.
However, it is important to note:
- Instability should not be confused with vibrancy.
- In the era of coalition governments, stability is crucial for development.
Q9: Arrange the different stages of passing of a bill into a law in their correct sequence:
- A resolution is passed to admit the bill for discussion
- The bill is referred to the President of India - write what happens next if s/he does not sign it
- The bill is referred to other House and is passed
- The bill is passed in the house in which it was proposed
- The bill is read clause by clause and each is voted upon
- The bill is referred to the subcommittee - the committee makes some changes and sends it back to the house for discussion
- The concerned minister proposes the need for a bill
- Legislative department in ministry of law, drafts a bill
Ans:
- The concerned minister proposes the need for a bill
- A resolution is passed to admit the bill for discussion
- Legislative department in ministry of law, drafts a bill
- The bill is referred to the subcommittee - the committee makes some changes and sends it back to the house for discussion
- The bill is read clause by clause and each is voted upon
- The bill is passed in the house in which it was proposed
- The bill is referred to other House and is passed
- The bill is referred to the President of India
(Note: If the President does not sign the bill, it goes back to the Parliament for with recommendations for reconsideration and further discussion to make some changes.
If the same bill is again sent to the President without any changes then the President has to give assent to the bill and it becomes a law.)
Q10: How has the system of parliamentary committee affected the overseeing and appraisal of legislation by the Parliament?
Ans: The system of parliamentary committees has significantly impacted how Parliament oversees and evaluates legislation. Key points include:
- Most technical aspects of legislation are referred to these committees.
- Parliament rarely rejects committee suggestions, leading to a strong influence on legislative decisions.
- There are over twenty Standing Committees that focus on budget issues and departmental bills.
- Joint Parliamentary Committees investigate financial irregularities and discuss specific bills.
- This system has alleviated the workload on Parliament, which meets for limited periods.
- As a result, Parliament often makes only minor changes to bills, which has weakened its overall appraisal of legislation